T-44 vesrus Panther

[cbo]

Hmm.. firing tests from where ??

Firing test data from the various sources. I've seen some of their US and UK data and that's from Army sources (i.e. primary documents). IIRC their German data is form published German sources as well as published US tests of German weaponry.

I never said the difference was significant, and im not talking 0 degree penetration here(as in Bird and Livingstone's book), im talking the obligatory 30 degree penetration.

If im not mistaken then German tests were carried out against 300BHN plates wich is more than what the Soviets did. And the penetration data for the 7.5cm Kwk42 is 124mm at 500m, 111mm at 1000m at 30 degree's from vertical. Now how does Bird and Livingstone's penetration data against 240BHN plates par up with this ?

Hmmmm... You seem rather unfamiliar with the Bird & Livingston book and data, considering how critical you are of them.........

The whole point of their work is to:

A: Calculate the armour resistance of armour plate converted to 0 degree impact on 240 BHN RHA against various projectiles.
B: Reverse engineer actual firing test results to 0 degree impact on 240 BHN RHA.

Doing so, you get a set of data that allows you to compare gun performance vs different types of target. So the German results vs 300 BHN is converted to 240 BHN equivalents, 50% succes etc.

If I dump 111mm penetration and a 75mm APC projectile into their formulae and compare with their penetration figures for the KwK 42, I get 30 degree penetration at 1000m but not at 1250m. If I use 124mm, I get penetration at 500m but not at 750. So it would appear to be consistent with your examples.

Claus B

[Timber]

Firing test data from the various sources. I've seen some of their US and UK data and that's from Army sources (i.e. primary documents). IIRC their German data is form published German sources as well as published US tests of German weaponry.

Aha.. I see.

Hmmmm... You seem rather unfamiliar with the Bird & Livingston book and data, considering how critical you are of them.........

Well i dont own the book, but i borrowed it once for while, so yeah im most likely not as familiar with the book as you are. But the things you say that german guns are capable of according to Bird and Livingstone, doesnt quite add up with what others say who use them as a source. (Maby they don't understand how it should be used )

The whole point of their work is to:

A: Calculate the armour resistance of armour plate converted to 0 degree impact on 240 BHN RHA against various projectiles.
B: Reverse engineer actual firing test results to 0 degree impact on 240 BHN RHA.

Doing so, you get a set of data that allows you to compare gun performance vs different types of target. So the German results vs 300 BHN is converted to 240 BHN equivalents, 50% succes etc.

Yes i know.

If I dump 111mm penetration and a 75mm APC projectile into their formulae and compare with their penetration figures for the KwK 42, I get 30 degree penetration at 1000m but not at 1250m. If I use 124mm, I get penetration at 500m but not at 750. So it would appear to be consistent with your examples.

But why arent you getting a 111mm penetration at 1250m instead of 1000m ?! The tests were carried out against 300BHN plates. and with a 66.6% succes criteria !.

Regards.

[cbo]

Well i dont own the book, but i borrowed it once for while, so yeah im most likely not as familiar with the book as you are. But the things you say that german guns are capable of according to Bird and Livingstone, doesnt quite add up with what others say who use them as a source. (Maby they don't understand how it should be used )

Maybe not

I know some people take the Bird & Livingstone book as gospel and others detest it with a vengeance. I dont have that kind of investment in it, to me it just appears as reasonable explanations of various issues related to WW2 armour penetration and penetration formulaes which gives results that compare reasonably well with firing tests and combat reports. And to me, reasonably well is good enough. I think it is an utter waste of time arguing over a 10% difference considering the number of different factors at play on the battlefield that might effect the outcome.
So I use the raw figures.
I dont fuddle around with modifiers for cast armour, flawed armour, extra hard armour, shot passing through Dieters lunch box and his ham & lettuce sandwich or take into account the four mosquitos the round squashed on its way to the target, that now sits on the ballistic cap.
Once people start muddling with all those figures, you can get all sorts of funny results, I'm sure

But why arent you getting a 111mm penetration at 1250m instead of 1000m ?! The tests were carried out against 300BHN plates. and with a 66.6% succes criteria !.

I think you misunderstand what I wrote.

According to your data, you should get a 111mm penetration at 1000 meters. If you dump 111mm armour thickness into the formulae vs a 75mm round hitting at 30 degrees, you get a 240 BHN RHA 0 degree APC equivalent of 144mm.
If you then look it up in the gun tables in the book, you'll see that the corresponding figure for the penetration of the KwK 42 firing APCBC is 149mm penetration at 1000 meters and 140mm at 1250 meters. So somewhere between 1000 meters and 1250 meters it penetrates the 240 BHN RHA 0 degree APC equivalent thickness of plate.
In other words, when converted, it penetrates more than it does in the German tests, as it should.

Claus B

[Ace31]

Think on that how many T-44 elements have been used on later tanks.
I can count few of them: diesel engine,turret is located at center,well sloped armour,RWD,good layout of transmission and engine.

All these elements were used by many soviet tanks before T44 development.
Only center located turret was new, but... all German tanks had it.
About Panther, I find in it the first real MBT, that seems to me more important than a single mechanical particular.

I'm only try to say that T44 was a tank using improved elements of T34, so not particularly innovative, only a stage in modernst soviet tank design...

[Timber]

Maybe not

Well im sure you understand it better than the ones ive heard talking about it. Because they certainly didnt say what you did, and there arguements certainly did not give as much sense as yours either.

I know some people take the Bird & Livingstone book as gospel and others detest it with a vengeance. I dont have that kind of investment in it, to me it just appears as reasonable explanations of various issues related to WW2 armour penetration and penetration formulaes which gives results that compare reasonably well with firing tests and combat reports. And to me, reasonably well is good enough. I think it is an utter waste of time arguing over a 10% difference considering the number of different factors at play on the battlefield that might effect the outcome.
So I use the raw figures.
I dont fuddle around with modifiers for cast armour, flawed armour, extra hard armour, shot passing through Dieters lunch box and his ham & lettuce sandwich or take into account the four mosquitos the round squashed on its way to the target, that now sits on the ballistic cap.
Once people start muddling with all those figures, you can get all sorts of funny results, I'm sure

That sounds good enough for me ! I truly try to avoid that myself.

I think you misunderstand what I wrote.

Yes I misunderstood, I interpreted it like the oppisite. (Sorry )

According to your data, you should get a 111mm penetration at 1000 meters. If you dump 111mm armour thickness into the formulae vs a 75mm round hitting at 30 degrees, you get a 240 BHN RHA 0 degree APC equivalent of 144mm.
If you then look it up in the gun tables in the book, you'll see that the corresponding figure for the penetration of the KwK 42 firing APCBC is 149mm penetration at 1000 meters and 140mm at 1250 meters. So somewhere between 1000 meters and 1250 meters it penetrates the 240 BHN RHA 0 degree APC equivalent thickness of plate.
In other words, when converted, it penetrates more than it does in the German tests, as it should.

Now that makes alot more sense, although im sure it should have been even further away, as the difference between 300BHN and 240BHN, is actually quite alot. But im not gonna go into detailes with it.

(But hey maby it hit a "bug" on the way !

Regards.

[Christian Ankerstjerne]

I would consider Livingston & Bird as primarily a way to compare anti-tank guns objectively, which has been quite difficult when based on the official data, because of the different ways this data was acheived. Their penetration results may or may not be correct in practice, but they are theoritically correct (if one follows their theories) - and in any case, they give a very good indication of the capabilities of each gun.

Christian

[Timber]

I would consider Livingston & Bird as primarily a way to compare anti-tank guns objectively, which has been quite difficult when based on the official data, because of the different ways this data was acheived. Their penetration results may or may not be correct in practice, but they are theoritically correct (if one follows their theories) - and in any case, they give a very good indication of the capabilities of each gun.

Christian

Well im sure it would be different in practice, as theories often dont work exactly alike in practice. At least not when they are so complecated.

Just an example of how what is written in books, aint always totally correct: One of my friends owns a 8.8cm Pz.Gr.39/43, and in Tom jentz's and allmost all other books it is said to weigh 10.20kg. Well my friend has measured his to weigh 10.26kg. The difference is small, but still, when one is a serius reseacher then it has some importance.

Regards.

[Christian Ankerstjerne]

Just because the weight is 10.26 kg. doens't mean that the median weight wasn't 10.2 kg. A difference of 0.6% would be a perfectly acceptable variation from the standard ammunition weight. In addition, the gun powder could perfectly well have absorbed 60 cm3 of water through the last 60 years, depending on how it has been stored.

It would be impossible to take into account weight variations of the entire production range of ammunition, as no such data would be available. If there were no officially accepted margin, no serious researcher would try to suggest one either.

Christian

[Timber]

Just because the weight is 10.26 kg. doens't mean that the median weight wasn't 10.2 kg. A difference of 0.6% would be a perfectly acceptable variation from the standard ammunition weight. In addition, the gun powder could perfectly well have absorbed 60 cm3 of water through the last 60 years, depending on how it has been stored.

It would be impossible to take into account weight variations of the entire production range of ammunition, as no such data would be available. If there were no officially accepted margin, no serious researcher would try to suggest one either.

Christian

Christian im talking about the projectile weight, not the whole Round. But yes your right, the median weight might very well be different, I just thought 0.6kg was a pretty high difference for a projectile.

Regards.

[cbo]

Christian im talking about the projectile weight, not the whole Round. But yes your right, the median weight might very well be different, I just thought 0.6kg was a pretty high difference for a projectile.

I would've been. Luckily it is only 0.06kg

Considering the variations we talked about earlier in the thickness of the Panthers glacis armour - nominal 80mm but in some 82 and 85mm, a 6% difference, the 0.6% difference mentioned here is not much. It would probably not effect its performance at all by the standards of WWII gunnery.

Claus B

[Timber]

Christian im talking about the projectile weight, not the whole Round. But yes your right, the median weight might very well be different, I just thought 0.6kg was a pretty high difference for a projectile.

I would've been. Luckily it is only 0.06kg

Considering the variations we talked about earlier in the thickness of the Panthers glacis armour - nominal 80mm but in some 82 and 85mm, a 6% difference, the 0.6% difference mentioned here is not much. It would probably not effect its performance at all by the standards of WWII gunnery.

Claus B

Oh sorry !! i meant 0.06kg !!

I had a long night

And no, it probably wouldnt have effected the performance by much, or at all. I just thought it was a little strange.

Regards.

[Christian Ankerstjerne]

If it wasn't the gun powder absorbing the water, it would be the explosive filler (tell him to try and dry it on an electric heater - it is doesn't blow up, weigh it afterwards )

Christian

[Timber]

If it wasn't the gun powder absorbing the water, it would be the explosive filler (tell him to try and dry it on an electric heater - it is doesn't blow up, weigh it afterwards )

Christian

Why a electricheater ?? (The Microwave would do it in only half that time )

Regards.

[Christian Ankerstjerne]

Perhaps, but it will not fint into just any microwave oven - through it would be interesting to put brass in the microwave if it did fit, so to make it go extra BOOOOOOM

Christian

[Timber]

Perhaps, but it will not fint into just any microwave oven - through it would be interesting to put brass in the microwave if it did fit, so to make it go extra BOOOOOOM

Christian

I wont be with my Microwave!! .

Btw does anyone know where it is possible to buy a 8.8cm Flak round. ?

Regards.